So im sure most of you know that it is possible to output iPod video content to a tv without the super expensive Apple AV cord... I am all about apple but it really pisses me off that they are trying to make extra coin on top of the $500 iPod with the $40 cable when a regular AV cable is just as good. Why would they take the steps to re-route the output just to make someone by the cable ? Is apple really that hard up ?
Shame a business for making money. Where is your outcry when Apple charges $65 for a two-button mouse (worth $20)? Where is your outcry when Apple charges $250 for a wireless router (worth $100)? Where is your outcry when Apple charges $240 for a stick of 1GB ram (worth $150)?
What are you whining about? I have seen at least 2 other Mac shops in town selling a generic version of the cable much cheaper.
Yeesh... stick to standards Apple... this is almost... dare I say it? Microsoftesque?
On the chance I read this message, I wish to change my view:
There's a good reason for Apple to use a different configuration for this. Most of these cables are for video cameras and such, so getting the video out is the most important. They put the video channel where the right audio channel is supposed to be so that if you only had a 2-channel cable, you could still get video and monaural audio out of it. The iPod designers, on the other hand, needed the cable to be headphone-compatible, so they left the two audio channels alone and put video on the third one.
It's really a more logical pinout, but it means that you /have/ to have a 3-channel 1/8"-RCA cable to get video, which would have been inconvenient for camera users who cared more about getting video and monaural audio than getting stereo audio.
Linear Mode
